Was the Vietnam War Genocide?

I dunno, it wasn't a conscious genocide, as in "let's kill all the southeast asians", so its a little hyperbolic.

Still, 4 million of them dead. Carpet bombings of villages, agent orange - clearly there was a callousness there and an undervaluing of their lives.

Also: the 4 million figure includes those killed from all causes, whether that's asian versus asian or american versus asian.
 
Praktik said:
I dunno, it wasn't a conscious genocide, as in "let's kill all the southeast asians", so its a little hyperbolic.

Still, 4 million of them dead. Carpet bombings of villages, agent orange - clearly there was a callousness there and an undervaluing of their lives.

Also: the 4 million figure includes those killed from all causes, whether that's asian versus asian or american versus asian.
Click to expand...

I thought it was 3 million (John Stockwell) including Cambodia and Laos.
 
It's not genocide when Americans do it, that's called collateral damage.
 
NWO Sentryman said:
I thought it was 3 million (John Stockwell) including Cambodia and Laos.
Click to expand...

4 millions seems to be the number I've come across but its been a while... either way the number is atrocious...

Nonetheless the policy aims of the war were related to anti-communism and spheres of influence. There was no policy predicated on eliminating people based on race.

There was however a policy of eliminating people based on ideology - and it was carried out with quite a strong degree of ruthlessness.

Surely, the enemy was ruthless also.
 
Let's see...

... no indication of any formal or informal policy of eradicating the Vietnamese people as a race, culture, or ethnicity.

... substantial numbers of Vietnamese people alive and well today, including over 1.5 million Vietnamese-Americans, many of them refugees or descendants of refugees, living here since shortly after the end of the war.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to say the Vietnam War was not a genocide, either in principle or in practice.
 
Let's not forget that most of the Vietnamese victims of the Vietnam War were killed by other Vietnamese...

In which case it would be genocidal suicide perhaps...?

The only examples I'm aware of in which a concerted effort was made to eradicate a particular ethnic group was the efforts of the Viet Cong against the South Vietnamese.

If you want to argue that Communism is a distinct ethnic identity (I'd love to hear that argument!), the Cold War is a pretty clear-cut attempt at Genocide, although a dismally unsuccessful one.
 
Which has nothing to do with genocide.

Kissinger is describing a perfectly reasonable and effective military strategy of focusing overwhelming firepower on the enemy supply line. This is precisely how wars are won.
Click to expand...

I was considering picking up Christopher Hitchen's Book "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"...I'm curious how any of you folks feel about the accusations that he's a war criminal from one of our fellow skeptics.
 
theprestige said:
Which has nothing to do with genocide.

Kissinger is describing a perfectly reasonable and effective military strategy...
Click to expand...

Sure, it probably wasn't racially motivated and thus not technically genocide. Atrocious nonetheless though.
 
Sunray Breaker said:
I was considering picking up Christopher Hitchen's Book "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"...I'm curious how any of you folks feel about the accusations that he's a war criminal from one of our fellow skeptics.
Click to expand...


A lot of us think that Hichens can be brilliant one day and full of s--- the next.
 
cornsail said:
Sure, it probably wasn't racially motivated and thus not technically genocide. Atrocious nonetheless though.
Click to expand...
Bombing the enemy's supply line, in order to weaken their army and bring the war to a swift, victorious conclusion? Sure it's atrocious, but only in the sense that "war is hell". What do you think was happening in Cambodia at that time, for Kissinger to single it out for such treatment? Hint: It was hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers, moving under cover by foot through the jungle, transporting food and ammunition and other supplies to the front lines, enabling daily continuation of wartime atrociousness. What would you have done to win the war? Mindlessly continue to fight a constantly-replenished enemy, while leaving your vastly superior air arm idle when it could be used to more quickly end the fighting?
 
there were some tribal people who were victims of the reds
h-mong and the mouti-yards
didn't the usa export most of them to avoid a genocidal results
and numbers killed post war will bump those numbers
esp mr pots score
 
Sunray Breaker said:
I was considering picking up Christopher Hitchen's Book "The Trials of Henry Kissinger"...I'm curious how any of you folks feel about the accusations that he's a war criminal from one of our fellow skeptics.
Click to expand...
Historically, "war criminal" only has any meaning when the victors are in a position to make it stick to the vanquished. Everything else is rhetoric.
 
theprestige said:
Bombing the enemy's supply line, in order to weaken their army and bring the war to a swift, victorious conclusion?
Click to expand...

If you equate "[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything. It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?” to "bombing the enemy supply line", then yes it is atrocious.
 
cornsail said:
If you equate "[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything. It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?” to "bombing the enemy supply line", then yes it is atrocious.
Click to expand...
Have you considered what the Ho Chi Minh Trail actually was? Have you ever wondered just what was involved in shipping enough military supplies from China to south Vietnam to sustain a war against the United States for several years? Do you actually have any idea at all what Kissinger was talking about? Did it really never occur to you that the North Vietnamese Army might actually have been capable of a logistical effort that merited such a response?
 
cornsail said:
If you equate "[Nixon] wants a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. He doesn’t want to hear anything. It’s an order, it’s to be done. Anything that flies, on anything that moves. You got that?” to "bombing the enemy supply line", then yes it is atrocious.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. If people like you had been in charge, we probably would have lost the Vietnam War, rather than bringing it to a swift, victorious conclusion.

:confused::confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom